Spending It: Guns or Butter?

The budget is the place where candidates and parties make their priorities clear – by literally putting their money where their mouths are.

Democrats are likely to argue that the question is less how much the government should spend and more where spending should go. The discussion opens up a much bigger debate about what citizens are entitled to expect from the government, and ultimately, what the appropriate role and responsibilities of the federal government are, and should be.

Democrats’ strategy-- framing the war against domestic spending

Democrats are seeking $23 billion above President Bush’s $933 billion total fiscal 2008 request. Most Republicans are calling it overspending, but House Democrat David R. Obey (Wisconsin) says that the amount is modest when measured against the overall federal budget, or especially compared with the president’s request of almost $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2008.

Democrats argue that Americans want policy change in Iraq and more focus on domestic issues, like education and healthcare- and that the public voted for “a new set of priorities at home” in the 2006 congressional elections.

Democrats in Congress like Obey are framing the budget as a moral issue: spending on Iraq vs. spending here at home. Mr. Obey argues that it is not credible for the President to ask Congress to spend billions in Iraq and then veto extra spending in education, health, science, law enforcement, energy research and medical research. However, some budget experts say that any money saved in Iraq should go to paying off debt instead of spending on new programs.

Further, the war money is requested in separate supplemental bills and so isn’t usually included in the budget figures.

Democrats also note the difference between their total proposed spending and the president’s is just 2.5 percent. But during election time, Republicans are likely to argue that Democrats overspend.

Democrats’ strategy – contrasting philosophies

Senate Democrats have described the Labor-HHS-Education measure as their signature spending bill, one that they say contrasts their priorities with those of President Bush.

Republicans argue that Democrats are trying to push the president to accept increased funding for the Labor-HHS-Education bill by combining it with veterans’ funding — a strategy Democrats acknowledge. Bush has vowed to veto the Labor-HHS-Education bill because it would provide $9.8 billion more than he requested-- the standoff over the annual appropriations process is expected to continue.

This disagreement over spending shows that it must be a bipartisan effort, unless one party controls The White House and has a large majority in Congress. Since this is not usually the case, Congress usually does not pass the appropriations bills on time.

Some say Congress should create a bipartisan commission next year to address long-term budget problems. Bipartisan commissions are favored by parties which expect to occupy the Presidency and take Congress by wide margins in upcoming elections. That way, new policies and priorities can be put to work quickly once they take office.

WomenMatter will continue to track government spending, leading up to the 2008 election, and beyond.

What do you think?

Where do you want your tax dollars to go? Do you support a veto because the budget is over Bush’s limit?

Let your representatives know what you think!

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• To explore our archive of past Environment Life Issue updates, click here.
  
  We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Article Posted on: 11/05/06